Olympic Galleria, Co., Inc. v. Sitt
This text of Olympic Galleria, Co., Inc. v. Sitt (Olympic Galleria, Co., Inc. v. Sitt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Olympic Galleria, Co., Inc. v Sitt
2026 NY Slip Op 03738
June 11, 2026
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Olympic Galleria, Co., Inc., Plaintiff-Respondent,
v
Jackie Sitt, Defendant-Appellant, John Doe, Nos 1-10, Defendants.
Decided and Entered: June 11, 2026
Index No. 150391/24|Appeal No. 6869&,M-2419|Case No. 2025-04219|
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., González, Higgitt, Michael, Chan, JJ.
Law Office of Robert M. Kaplan, White Plains (Robert M. Kaplan of counsel), for appellant.
Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., New York (Bradley S. Silverbush of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lyle E. Frank, J.), entered on or about April 30, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiff's motion to reargue defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, and upon reargument, vacated so much of its prior order, entered on or about January 23, 2025, as dismissed the cause of action for attorneys' fees (the fifth cause of action), reinstated that cause of action, and granted summary judgment in plaintiff's favor on that cause of action, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.
The appeal is moot and must be dismissed as our prior decisions remain law of the case. On September 11, 2025, this Court modified Supreme Court's January 23, 2025 order by denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on its cause of action for ejectment and granting defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing that cause of action (Olympic Galleria, Co., Inc. v Sitt, 241 AD3d 1092, 1093 [1st Dept 2025]). We found that the predicate notice required to terminate the tenancy was insufficient at common law. As a result, the tenancy continued, and the cause of action for use and occupancy was necessarily dismissed (id. at 1093-1094).
We also dismissed plaintiff's cross-appeal from so much of the January 23, 2025 order as granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action for attorneys' fees. We held that plaintiff's cross-appeal was rendered moot by the April 29, 2025 order now before us, and that the amount of attorneys' fees should be determined by the motion court at a hearing (id. at 1095). Defendant's motion for reargument of his appeal (M-5544) was denied by this Court on January 15, 2026. The arguments raised on this appeal were thus previously addressed by this Court in our September 11, 2025 and January 15, 2026 orders; accordingly, the appeal is moot, requiring dismissal (see Herman v Herman, 121 AD3d 565, 566 [1st Dept 2014]).
M-2419 Olympic Galleria, Co., Inc. v Jackie Sitt
Motion to dismiss granted.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: June 11, 2026
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Olympic Galleria, Co., Inc. v. Sitt, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/olympic-galleria-co-inc-v-sitt-nyappdiv-2026.